Apple, Psystar seek protective order in preparation for trial

Apple and unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar have agreed to restrict access to certain trade secrets and software code in an effort to avoid any leaks to their respective competitors as they near the discovery process that will precede a formal trial.

Filed yesterday, the 18-page order will bound both parties to an agreement requiring all "personal, proprietary, or confidential information or trade secrets" be labeled with "CONFIDENTIAL" and/or "CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY". The order is pending approved by Northern District of California Judge William Alsup.

The material in question could be documents, software code, interrogatories, deposition testimony, and other information found during discovery, and it is "not intended to govern" the trial. Presumably, Judge Alsup will establish guidelines of protection during that phase of the litigation.

The protected materials can only be used for prosecuting or defending the legal action, potential appeals included.

"If any party or third party believes that disclosure of Discovery Materials would affect its competitive position, security interests, intellectual properties, or technological developments in an adverse manner," the order states, "that party or third party may designate the Discovery Materials as 'CONFIDENTIAL  ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY.'"

The order continues, "The designation...shall be limited to Discovery Materials that the disclosing part in good faith believes contain extremely sensitive confidential information, the disclosure of which would create a substantial risk of serious competitive injury."

Either side will have an opportunity to review the résumés of their adversary's expert witnesses before they view the material and object at their discretion to any individual's participation. Once approved, those experts will be barred from consulting with a competitor (giving advice, analysis, or recommendations) for a full year after the trial  or appeal  has concluded. Each will sign an agreement attesting to those conditions before they participate.

Special provisions are in place for the discovery of software code produced by Psystar or Apple. Each side must make a secured computer "without access of any kind to the Internet or...network" available in a secure room at the law office of their attorneys. Every person who enters and leaves the room must sign and date a log, and no written or electronic record can be made of the software code, with one exception.

"The producing party shall make available a laser printer with commercially reasonable printing speeds for on-site printing during inspection of the Software Code," the order says. Printing is allowed only when "reasonably necessary" for case preparation, and only the portions needed can be printed. Those documents must be returned to the producing party at the end of all legal proceedings.

Apple, of course, has much more to lose if its software code is made public, as it would clear several hurdles for individuals who want to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, putting the obvious competitive disadvantages with other companies aside. Psystar, meanwhile, may have to disclose the code it uses to circumvent the protection Apple uses to institute kernel panics and infinite loops on non-authorized hardware.

Psystar recently amended its complaint in mid-February, repeating its allegations that Apple is misusing its copyright to prevent third-parties from entering the Mac hardware business. Apple first sued last July to halt the cloner from selling its Open Computers with a hacked version of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard installed. Apple's End User Licensing Agreement forbids the use of its software on non-Apple hardware.

What if it was Psystar's purpose all along just to get this information so they can leak it? If they reveal this stuff they go to jail for a few months and pay a big fine that they can't afford and won't end up paying anyway. Apple has a much bigger downside though and a leak like that can't be taken back.

[/conspiracy theory]

Also, what's with the super high security, but then they are allowed to print it out, stuff it in the lawyers briefcase and walk out the door with it?
WTF?

what if it was psystar's purpose all along just to get this information so they can leak it? If they reveal this stuff they go to jail for a few months and pay a big fine that they can't afford and won't end up paying anyway. Apple has a much bigger downside though and a leak like that can't be taken back.

[/conspiracy theory]

also, what's with the super high security, but then they are allowed to print it out, stuff it in the lawyers briefcase and walk out the door with it?
Wtf?

OMG_ you're the first post- full of blah, blah, blah.
Always paranoid and negative. Always a stomach full of koolaid.

Well, Pollyanna, can you imagine what Apple's code would be worth to certain other parties? You always make up scenarios where Apple is the bad guy - can't stand it when other posts disagree with that? You're the negative one.

He's just getting back at me for once saying that teckstud was the first post and that he was usually negative about everything etc.

I was joking a bit with the paranoid stuff, but I'm sure that bad things *can* happen otherwise why have the protections in place at all? Lawyers can usually be counted on to be professional I guess, but everything about the personality of the Psystar defendants argues for them not giving a rat's behind about Apple's IP.

I can't see how Psystar has made it this far. Apple has done all the copyrighting they could have done to protect OS X. If Apple does not want people to run their software on other hardware, they have the right to do so.

Psystar, meanwhile, may have to disclose the code it uses to circumvent the protection Apple uses to institute kernel panics and infinite loops on non-authorized hardware.

This is getting annoying, whoever wrote this either doesn't understand how the system works, or is lying on purpose. If that is Psystars argument, they are full of shit.

That kernel panic happens because XNU expects the firmware to pass a device tree among other things to the kernel during boot, because XNU doesn't probe hardware like other kernels. BIOS can't do this, so the kernel can't continue and issues a panic, causing a reboot, which will happen over and over unless you use a small piece of code to pass a basic device tree to XNU. That is not a protection method. The protection method involves encrypted binaries and a key sitting in a chip in the hardware.

To imply that Apple is intentionally causing kernel panics on unauthorized hardware is completely crap, they don't need to do that.

his is getting annoying, whoever wrote this either doesn't understand how the system works, or is lying on purpose. If that is Psystars argument, they are full of shit.

That kernel panic happens because XNU expects the firmware to pass a device tree among other things to the kernel during boot, because XNU doesn't probe hardware like other kernels. BIOS can't do this, so the kernel can't continue and issues a panic, causing a reboot, which will happen over and over unless you use a small piece of code to pass a basic device tree to XNU. That is not a protection method. The protection method involves encrypted binaries and a key sitting in a chip in the hardware.

To imply that Apple is intentionally causing kernel panics on unauthorized hardware is completely crap, they don't need to do that.

It's interesting how Psystar's version of what Apple is doing here has become the "standard explanation" even by those that don't agree with their suit.

Thanks for posting this. In all the threads I have read on the main Apple forums since this fiasco started, I don't think anyone has ever bothered to mention that Psystar's assertion about the "forced" kernel panic is simply wrong.